Early Criminal Trials. months, apparently to enable an investiga tion to be made with respect to Somerset's relations with the Spanish ambassador, and also in consequence of Lady Somerset having given birth at this time to a daughter, who afterward became the mother of Lord Russell. At length, on May 24, in the following year, the countess was arraigned, and at once pleaded guilty. She simply said, when asked why sentence should not be pro nounced, "I can much aggravate, but noth ing extenuate my fault; I desire mercy, and that the lords will intercede for me with the King."' The Countess' plea was evidently unexpected, for in Bacon's works is pre served a speech which he had prepared for her prosecution. Most important of all was the trial of the Earl of Somerset, which now followed. Somerset's head had unquestionably been turned by his rapid advancement. His arrogance and his open espousal, as a high officer of state, of the Spanish connection, had aroused a powerful intrigue against him. This influence was now actively arrayed in pressing its advantage. On the other hand, he had so long enjoyed the King's favor and had participated so deeply in the secret affairs of state, that the king may well have been apprehensive of the outcome of the death struggle of his quondam favorite. When the day for the trial had been fixed, Somerset declared that he would not appear. He warned the King, furthermore, that if he were forced to attend he would make some disclosures that would be likely to lead to serious consequences. The royal apprehen sion is plainly disclosed in the correspond ence which passed between the King and Sir Francis Bacon, who, as attorney-general, conducted the prosecution. The elaborate brief which Bacon prepared for this case (preserved in his published works) indicates the thoroughness of his preparation. In this brief, among what he terms "questions legal for trie judges." he notes an inquiry whether, in case Somerset should attempt to make any
491
disclosures involving the King, he should not be intermpted and silenced by the court; and if he should persist, whether he should not be withdrawn and the evidence con cluded in his absence. It is said that among other precautions in this direction, Somerset, at his trial, was placed between two servants, who had instructions to throw a cloak over his head, at a given signal, and forcibly carry him from the court room. Somerset was finally arraigned before his peers in the Court of the Lord High Steward. Lord Ellesmere presided with dignity, and, on the whole, treated the prisoner fairly. although his repeated solicita tion to the defendant to confess was very reprehensible. In accordance with the usual custom Ellesmere opened the trial with an address to the prisoner, the substance of which is disclosed by the following passage: "Now, I must tell you, whatever you have to say in your own defence say it boldly, without fear; and though it be not ordinary custom, you shall have pen and ink to help your memory; but remember that God is the God of truth; a fault defended is a double crime; hide not the verity nor affirm an untruth, for to deny what is true increases the offence; take heed lest your wilfulness cause the gates of mercy to be shut upon you." The prosecution was conducted by At torney-General Bacon and Sergeants Mon tague and Crewe, and it is one of the ablest specimens of such work to be found in the early judicial records. As a precedent in judicial procedure its value is insignificant by reason of the non-observance of rules of evidence which are now considered funda mental, but as an example of the methodical accumulation of testimony it is still worthy of study. Bacon had no difficulty in proving that Somerset had taken part in a highly suspicious plot, and he argued that Somerset could have no motive to imprison Overbury unless he had meant to murder him; for, he said, if Overbury had been sent abroad he would have been effectually disabled by dis tance from hindering the obnoxious mar
